Maps are assumed to be balanced when they provide mostly equal opportunities to all players. There are several ways to get to this point without strenuous playtesting, the most common one being usage of symmetrical maps. Symmetrical maps ensure the properties are the same distance from the players so one side doesn't get an insurmountable advantage over others in funding.

Being that AW is turn-based, there's turn advantage to keep in mind as well. The classic setup is to have 3000 funds at the start, meaning only the HQ and two bases are owned, with an infantry or city given to the players that move last. Symmetricality also has a role in this in the case of the extra infantry because it means player one moves first on one side of the map while player has moved first on the other.

You can go ahead with an asymmetric map or high starting funds, but then you have many more factors to consider when ensuring the map is balanced and players may be less willing to use your maps since many have the classic scenario engraved in their minds. Your second map, for example, is asymmetric and provides easy access and turn advantage to the center for Orange Star. It also has low volatility because assets are distanced from each other; compare to the first map which has exposed HQs.

Of course, this is at a glance; I haven't played either map and have no practical evaluation of them.

Keeping what you said in mind, I completely remade tripwire. 3k initial funds, stopping at a total of 7k. (Assuming you can hold your ground.) I've kept the exposed HQ's because I feel it presents a challenge and spreads out both forces a little to prevent a stalemate in the center.

It looks rather basic but it'll serve as a foundation. Version 2 is essentially a scaled-down version of, err, version 1; there's really only one front due to the arrangement of the properties being focused on the center what with how difficult it is to get to the sides. Whoever controls it first will probably have a significant advantage. Of course, if this is what you want then please carry on.

Think about what actions you want to be available to the players. Consider what the opening moves will be, specific strategies to use, and the importance of certain properties in their given places. Putting neutral production properties somewhere on the map is bound to increase the attention to that area.

One practice I use when arranging properties is to space them out according to whichever unit is likely to capture them. For example, cities will be two or four or ... spaces apart with 3 movement infantry, increased move costs being accounted for. In DoR, with 5 move bike infantry available, I arrange properties a bit differently. In CW, with X move infantry and active unloading, properties can be even more varied.

Another thing you may wish to explore is terrain variation. Some players detest clumped or lined terrain which is mostly what you use now. Others get headaches if the terrain is too meticulously placed or looks unnatural or involves naval combat or whatever. I prefer moderation on this point but, as with everything, you can try what you like.